Newsletter

Chatham County and elections board in disagreement over SPLOST

A day after the Chatham County Board of Elections refused to put the proposed special purpose local option sales tax extension on the November ballot, there’s no agreement as to who has authority to decide what goes on the ballot.

Commission Chairman Al Scott, under the advice of the county attorney, said the elections board has no standing in deciding whether or not SPLOST will be on the ballot. Its vote Monday was not even necessary and SPLOST will be on the ballot, he said.

“I think that the elections board got a little carried away,” he said Tuesday. “I don’t think a vote was necessary. They can’t stop a county from calling a referendum.”

But Joseph Steffen, chairman of the elections board, was adamant Tuesday that responsibility lives with his five-member board to call an election.

The disagreement places what has already been a somewhat contentious issue, beset with last-minute actions and doubts about the likelihood of SPLOST passing, further into disarray. The SPLOST referendum has been scheduled to take place Nov. 5.

The disagreement aroused when the elections board voted Monday not to place SPLOST on the ballot. The board made the decision because it said it did not receive a signed copy of the county and city of Savannah’s intergovernmental agreement that lays out how sales tax revenue is to be apportioned.

Steffen initially said City Manager Stephanie Cutter had not signed the document but has since clarified his statement to acknowledge that Scott’s signature was not on it, either. On Tuesday, the elections board received a properly signed copy, he said.

Bret Bell, city spokesman, asserted that Cutter had indeed signed it Monday after receiving a formal copy from the county Friday. It appeared, Bell said, that the county did not send the elections board the correct document.

But it is the county’s position that a signed intergovernmental agreement is not even required to hold the election. The elections board has no say in whether SPLOST will be on the November ballot, according to the county attorney.

In the memo, he answered some of the concerns raised by the elections board, including verifying that the county can repurpose SPLOST money for a reduction in ad valorem taxes through a one-time millage rollback. He also asserted that Nov. 5 and not Oct. 15, the start of early voting, is the date public notices about the election must be placed in the county legal organ (Savannah Morning News) for four weeks prior to.

Authority questioned

The elections board also voted Monday to deny calling for a second question on the referendum about the repurposing of SPLOST funds, as the commission had approved. In addition, it requested guidance from the state Attorney General’s office on that and other concerns.

“There is no discretion given to any board other than the Board of Commissioners,” Hart wrote. He pointed to two case laws, Gwinnett County v. Bolin (1992) and Shadix v. Carroll County (1999), to back his position.

“If you wish to hold the meeting to ratify the (commission’s) decision made, the county does not oppose that action,” Hart stated.

“Should the Board of Elections decide not to hold such a meeting or to direct the election superintendent not publish the notice of election, the county will move forward all the same and take such steps necessary to ensure the superintendent proceeds with the election.”

Steffen, an attorney who has chaired the elections board for nearly two years, said in response to the county’s claims that he believes the elections board has discretion in calling elections.

But he remained hopeful the two sides can resolve the matter. He said he did not want to put Russell Bridges, election supervisor, into a difficult position in which he would be forced to chose between following orders from the county or the elections board he directly works for.

The elections board, Steffen said, wants the commission to re-vote, preferably when it meets Friday, on its resolution imposing SPLOST, which was originally made Aug. 23, so that the county’s resolution for the referendum properly comes after approval of the intergovernmental agreement.

“If they feel they can go ahead and put something on the ballot without the Board of Elections signing off on it, then more power to them,” he said. “We will see how that works out.”

Bridges declined to comment on the matter, referring questions to Steffen.

Jennifer Burns, assistant county attorney, said the role of the supervisor in calling an election is purely “perfunctory.”

Moreover, she said the commission on Friday will be ratifying the intergovernmental agreement “but nothing more.” It’s “questionable” if the commission is required to do so but “good practice to do it,” she said.

She said the decision to ratify the agreement was not related to the elections board vote on Monday.

Moving forward

Scott said the commission intends to finalize its SPLOST project list by Sept. 27, after commissioners give their input on what projects they would like to have appear. The total budget of county projects comes to $122.5 million, not including the $15 million going toward the county-wide industrial park project.

The city plans to vote on a detailed list of its projects on Sept. 19.

The county has projected that $370 million will be collected in revenues over six years, beginning October 2014, if SPLOST is approved by voters in November.

Savannah Mayor Edna Jackson did not respond to a request for her response to the elections board vote on Monday. However, Hart stated in his memo to Abolt that he did not expect City Attorney Brooks Stillwell to “take exception” to his position.

Clint Mueller, legislative director of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, said he had never encountered a case in his more than 15 years with ACCG of a dispute arising over who has authority to call an election.

ACCG put together a 128-page SPLOST 2013 guidebook that notes: “Following adoption, the (commission) board must send the resolution or ordinance to the county election superintendent, who issues the call for the election and conducts the SPLOST election.”

Mueller said it is his understanding that state law gives the county ultimate responsibility for calling elections. He was uncertain if the elections board had any authority to prevent an election from moving forward.

“My thinking, and this is just me, is that would be an issue for the court to have to decide,” he said.

“So they would have to go ahead and go forward with the election. If someone challenges the elections — saying the county did not take the proper steps to call this election — it would be up to the courts to invalidate the election.”

On the matter of repurposing SPLOST money, Mueller was certain that the state code (48-8-123), which was also cited by Hart, gives counties the authority to do so by deeming past SPLOST projects infeasible if voters approve.

That section of the law, part of Georgia House Bill 240, was passed in 2011, said Mueller, who noted that he was instrumental in drafting it.